The Disease of Detention: Julian Assange’s Thousand Days

The Disease of Detention: Julian Assange’s
Thousand Days

Police
states quaffing the blood of victims have an excuse: they
wish to oppress in order to justify the status quo, keeping
the fires burning, their subjects scared. They deceive
because they know that truth is another country. States that
possess some constitutional worth, those that front a
democratic chamber, elected by an enfranchised electorate
prefer more subtle techniques, resorting to indefinite
detention, without charge.

The breakdown of WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange’s confinement for 1000 days reads
as a resume on how authorities can dilute legal obligations
with corrosive effect. 10 days were spent in solitary
confinement in Wandsworth prison; 550 days were spent under
house arrest; and 440 days have been spent at the Ecuadorean
embassy in London being denied or guaranteed safe passage by
the United Kingdom.

In June 2012, Friends of WikiLeaks
sent an open letter to the European Court of Human Rights
detailing their concerns about the Swedish request that
Assange be extradited for questioning over alleged sex
offences. “For a man who has not been charged with any
crime, we consider this arbitrary and unlawful detention and
thus a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights
which the ECHR claims to uphold.”

The thrust of the
argument is simple and terrifying. Complying with the
European Arrest Warrant in this instance would “make it
possible for every citizen detained in the EU to be
extradited to another country without charge or any evidence
against them, which we consider a more than distressing
development.”

This is one of the great obscenities of
the age, fed by complacency, justified by indifference. And
it is a continuing one. A thousand days without charge is a
bilious stain. A thousand days hounded, encircled and
monitored by a collective of state interests keen to see him
vanquished by silence and incarceration. But Assange knows
better. He keeps busy. He teases and can even charm. He
conquers through correspondence and Skype, and emits the
light of reform via assistance to other
whistleblowers.

Naturally, the riposte here is that there
is no detention as such – he has been granted sanctuary by
Ecuador, albeit within the confines of the embassy. But
Assange is much like some of the Palestinian territories,
encircled and embargoed when state emergency warrants it. It
is an intolerable deadlock made worse by the ineffectual
paladins in Canberra who insist that the welfare of its
citizens is up to other states.

What the Australian
government has in fact done is show that individuals in
Assange’s circumstances may well be faced with an
extradition order even on returning to Australia. According
to Assange himself, speaking to Headley Gritter on
Melbourne’s 3RRR, “Australia changed its Extradition Act
just over a year ago to make it easier to extradite
Australians to the United States for so-called political
crimes.”

Far from being fanciful, a reading of
amendments made to the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) shows that
tinkering has been made to lower the threshold for which
extradition might be sought. These had been in the pipeline
for some time and demonstrate the delight officials in
Canberra take in allowing foreign powers to have a bite of
the Australian cherry. After all, the amending
instrument’s purpose was aimed at “streamlining the
extradition process and cutting delays.” Rights of
citizens have evidently become matters of slimming,
streaming and reduction, a weight loss program for aspiring
police states.

The amending culprit was the
Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Long winded in title, it
promises to be blunt in effect. Political consciousness in
Australia has been so narcotised by the security
establishment that any discussion about the implications of
the bill passed without comment. A moribund fifth estate
helped in this.

Yes, section 7 makes a bland reference
that individuals will not be extradited for “political
offences,” suggesting that Assange might have misread the
scope of the provision. But everything hinges on a
definition.

The devil lurks in the exclusions for what a
“political offence” is. Excluded from it are offences
“that involve an act of violence against a person’s life
or liberty” or “any offence prescribed by
regulations…” This gives government officials extensive
room to manoeuvre over what matters “political” might or
might not be. Take the issue of “terrorist” offences,
which are often a confection of government to nab protesters
deemed enemies of the state. One person’s revealing
publisher is another’s nosy terrorist.

Persons may be
extradited for minor offences, punishable by less than 12
months imprisonment. The Attorney-General is entitled to
surrender the person if he or she considers there is no
“real risk” of execution occurring. Previously, the
threshold had been more onerous, making the AG take into
account the likelihood of the person’s trial, conviction
and sentence to death.

Assange’s confinement can also be
seen in a broader sense, the disease rendered acceptable by
authorities who have decided to throw away the law book in
the name of law. The sheer fury against those who expose the
rules of the game, be it the killing game (Collateral
Murder), or the spying game (PRISM, Tempora) demands stern
retribution. Those keen to breathe some life into the
cadaverous body of democracy have become prominent
targets.

In February, then Bradley (now Chelsea)
Manning’s 1001 day detention was ruled as being
“reasonable” by Judge Colonel Denise Lind. No
constitutional rights had been violated. The case had been
“uniquely complex”. Thus, extensive detention was given
its legal gloss.

Assange’s confinement is the guide book
authorities are now using in a global effort to stifle the
business of publication and whistleblowing. The modern,
pseudo-democratic state understands that the murderous gulag
is less attractive than indefinite detention in
circumstances that break the will for punitive purpose. It
is that new political entity that requires speedy reform, if
not wholesale
abolition.

*************

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar
at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT
University, Melbourne and is running with Julian Assange for
the Australian Senate with the WikiLeaks
Party.

Compare that [the saturation coverage of WWI] not just with the thinly reported anniversaries last year of key battles in the New Zealand Wars, but with the coverage of the very consequential present-day efforts to remedy the damage those wars wrought, and the picture is pretty dismal. More>>

ALSO:

New Zealand, promoting itself as an efficient producer, has been operating as a factory farm for overseas markets with increasing intensity ever since the introduction of refrigerated shipping in 1882. The costs to native forests and to bio-diversity have been outlandish. The discussion of impacts has been minimal... More>>

ALSO:

There had been a fortnight of fevered buildup. Yet here we are in the aftermath of the February 28 showdown between the new Syriza government in Greece and the European Union “troika” and… no-one seems entirely sure what happened. Did the asteroid miss Earth? More>>

ALSO:

The economic contribution of businesses and people is often quite unrelated to their taxable incomes. EHome, as a relatively new company, may have never earned any taxable income. Its successors almost certainly will earn income and pay tax. Yet it was eHome itself who made the biggest contribution by starting the venture in the first place. More>>

ALSO:

Alastair Thompson: Oh how the mighty have fallen. Once journalism was possibly a noble profession, though that is certainly now, to quote our Prime Minister, a 'contestable' notion. It certainly seemed at least a little noble when I joined the ranks of reporters in 1989 . But ... More>>